Suchergebnisse

Adapted from the source document.

Adapted from the source document.

Soğuk Savaş Sonrasında Avrupa Birliği'ne Üyelik Kriterlerinin Neo Fonksiyonalist Teori Açısından Analizi Elif Toprak Doktora, Uluslararası İlişkiler Bölümü Tez Danışmanı: Prof. Dr. Mehmet Genç Bu tez, Avrupa Birliği'nin son genişleme süreci olan Orta ve Doğu Avrupa genişlemesini, neo fonksiyonalist ve sosyal yapısalcı kuramlar açısından incelemektedir. Tezin temel argümanı, referans alınan iki kuramın sosyal ve kurumsal varsayımlarına dayanarak; genişleme sürecinde elitler başta olmak üzere resmi ve gayri resmi grupların, kurumların, hatta bireylerin ve dolayısıyla öğrenme ve sosyalleşme süreçlerinin, devletlerin tercih ve kararlarının oluşumunda önemli rol oynadığıdır. Bu amaçla, neo fonksiyonalizmin tarihsel gelişimi, etkilediği teoriler (karşılıklı bağımlılık, rejim teorileri ve kurumsalcılık) ve bunların hükümetlerarası entegrasyon yaklaşımlarından farklılıkları ortaya konmuştur. Neo fonksiyonalizmin esin kaynağı olduğu sosyal yapısalcı yaklaşımın Avrupa Birliği (AB) çalışmalarına uygunluğu; ve sosyolojik ve kurumsal yaklaşımın gerekliliği üzerinde durulmuştur. Olay incelemesi olarak, AB'nin Orta ve Doğu Avrupa genişlemesi, Birliğin politika ve stratejileri açısından tarihsel ve teorik olarak analiz edilmiştir. Üyelik kriterleri, Orta ve Doğu Avrupa devletleri ve Türkiye açısından karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmiş ve süreçlerin ve yaklaşımların farklılıkları ortaya konmuştur. Uluslarüstü (supranasyonel) ve hükümetlerarası öğelerin dengesi açısından sorgulanan genişleme sürecinde, varılan sonuç hükümetlerarası unsurların ağır bastığı olmuştur. Ancak ulusaşın (transnasyonel) etkilerin bireysel, toplumsal ve kurumsal tabanda yoğun olduğu argümanı, neo fonksiyonalist ve sosyal yapısalcı çerçevede savunulmuştur. Soğuk Savaş'm sona ermesi ile beraber Birlik, genişleme-bütünleşme tercihi aşamasında, kurumsal reformlar ile esnek entegrasyon anlayışım birleştiren bir genişleme stratejisi seçmiştir. Amsterdam, Nice ve Anayasal Andlaşmalar ile gerçekleştirilen kurumsal değişiklikler sınırlı ancak önemli adımlar olarak kabul edilmektedir. Ortak Anayasanın onaylanması sürecinde olan AB için yeni üye devletlerin adaptasyonu ve aday devletlerin hazırlıkları süreci, ortak AB kimliği açısından önem taşımaktadır. ; This dissertation analyses the last enlargement process of the European Union, namely Central and Eastern European (CEEC) enlargement from neo functional and social constructivist perspectives. The basic argument of the dissertation is that, based on the social and institutional assumptions of the two theories referenced; governmental and non-governmental groups mainly elites, institutions, even individuals, thus related learning and socialization processes have played important role in shaping state preferences and decisions. For this research interest; first of all, the development of neo functionalism and the theories inspired by it (interdepence, regime theories, institutionalism) and their differences from intergovernmental approaches have been elaborated. The necessity and the appropriateness of the social constructivist perspective (also inspired by neo functionalism) to EU studies and importance of institutional and social approaches have been emphasized. As the case study, the EU's CEEC enlargement, the Union's policy and strategies are historically and theoretically analysed. The accession criteria are examined with an eye to the differences of Turkey's candidacy from that of CEECs. Questioning the enlargement process as regards the balance of supranational and intergovernmental elements, the conclusion reached is that the intergovernmental practices overwhelm. But the transnational network of relations affect the decisions and even shape them, both at the domestic and the European level. With the end of the Cold War, the EU came to the point of deciding between enlargement and deepening. The Union has chosen an enlargement strategy uniting institutional reform with flexible integration. The institutional reform realized by the Amsterdam, Nice and the Constitutional Treaties have been modest but important. For the EU on the way to an European Constitution, the adaptation of the new member states and the preparation for the waiting candidates are vital for a common European identity.

Devletin çok eski çağlardan günümüze kadar çeşitli şekillerde ortaya çıktığı bilinmektedir. Tarih boyunca ?devlet?i tanımlama çabası, siyasi düşünürlerin temel uğraşlarından biri olmuştur. Günümüz devlet anlayışının temelleri 1648 Westphalia Barışı ile ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu tarihten günümüze devletin ne olduğu sorusu ve günümüzdeki anlamıyla ulus-devleti oluşturan unsurların neler olması gerektiği üzerinde çeşitli görüşler ortaya atılmıştır. Devletlerin sayısal olarak Westphalia Barışı'ndan bu yana artış gösterdiği bilinmektedir. Özellikle 20. yüzyıl bu artışın en çok görüldüğü dönem olmuştur. Bu dönemin başında imparatorlukların dağılması sonucu devlet sayısında önemli atışlar meydana gelmiş, 1945 yılından Soğuk Savaş'ın bitimine kadar olan dönemde ise dekolonizasyon süreci ile birlikte uluslararası sistemde devlet sayısı hızla artmıştır. Soğuk Savaş'ın sona ermesinin ardından sosyalist değerlerin dünyadaki prestijinin sarsılmasıyla birlikte bu savaştan galip çıkan liberal dünya değerleri uluslararası sistemin yapısını kökten değiştirmiştir. Demokrasi, insan hakları, liberal ekonomi politikaları artık hemen hemen tüm devletler tarafından olmazsa olmazlar arasına girmiştir. Soğuk Savaş sonrası totaliter ve sosyalist rejimlerin istenmediği ve bu gibi yönetimlerin devlet olma arzularının uluslararası toplum tarafından kabul görmediğini söyleyebiliriz. Yugoslavya farklı etnik kökenden halkları barındıran yapısıyla, Soğuk Savaş sonrası gelişmeler ve milliyetçi akımların tekrar yükselişe geçmesiyle birlikte parçalanarak uluslararası sistemde yeni devletlerin ortaya çıkmasına neden olmuştur. Soğuk Savaş'ın galibi Batı, sosyalist rejimlerin yerine liberal değerleri benimsemiş rejimleri destekleyerek bu parçalanmaya katkıda bulunmuştur. Kosova'nın Yugoslavya'yı oluşturan diğer devletler gibi bağımsızlık yönündeki talebine Yugoslavya içindeki özel durum ileri sürülerek reddedilmiş ve uzun süre Kosova bağımsızlığını elde edememiştir. Kosova'nın 18 Şubat 2008 tarihinde Sırbistan'dan tek taraflı bağımsızlık ilanının ardından Soğuk Savaş sonrası devletlerin hangi şartlarda ortaya çıktığı tekrar sorgulanmaya başlanmıştır. ; States are known to have occurred in various sorts since prehistoric times. Throughout the history, defining what state is has been one of the chief concerns of political philosophers. The fundamentals of today?s understanding of what state is dates back Westphalia Treaty in 1648. Since then, there have been several speculations over the question of what the state is and what the components of a nation-state should be. It is known that the number of states has increased since Westphalia Treaty. Particularly, this increase was seen in the period of the 20th century. At the beginning of this period, the number of states increased because of the collapse of empires, and in the period from 1945 onwards until the end of cold war, the number of states in international system increased dramatically within decolonization period. Following the cold war period with the collapse of the prestige of the socialist values in the world, liberal victorious war leaders of the world fundamentally changed the structure of international system. Democracy, human rights, liberal economic policies in almost all states by now had become the sine qua non. We can say that totalitarian and socialist regimes were not desired and that the desires of such governments were not accepted by international communities. With a structure of having peoples from different ethnic origins, Yugoslavia caused new states to emerge in international system because of the developments in postwar period and the rise of nationalist movements. West, the winner of the cold war, adopted the liberal values instead of the socialist regimes, contributing to this fragmentation by supporting them. Kosovo?s demand for independence like other states constituting Yugoslavia was rejected due to the claims that it had special status in Yugoslavia, and thus Kosovo was not able to declare its independence for a long time. Following the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo from Serbia on 8 February 2008, the conditions from which states emerged in postwar period were questioned again. ; Bu çalışma Selçuk Üniversitesi BAP koordinatörlüğü tarafından 09203021 nolu YL tez projesi olarak desteklenmiştir

The question raised in this dissertation is: how is foreign policy explained by analyzing the use of historical analogies by decision-makers in their public statements? The purpose of this study is to develop an analytical framework that will help one to analyze the role of historical analogies in foreign policy. This dissertation challenges conventional approaches to historical analogies. It claims that conventional approaches unduly restrict the role that historical analogies play in foreign policy because of the way they perceive variety of practices in which historical analogies are used, as well as their premises about history and language analysis. This dissertation argues against the arguments of conventional instrumental, cognitive and integrated approaches and claims that the scope of constitutive approach needs to be extended. An alternative conceptualization of historical analogies is built on premises of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method. In order to demonstrate the significance of the alternative approach to historical analogies the model is applied to an illustrative analysis of the Cold War historical analogy used by the U.S. and Russia's officials in 2007–2008. The question whether a chance of a (new) Cold War between the U.S. and Russia was possible at that time is answered by showing what kind of rules policy-makers had constituted by using the Cold War historical analogy.

The question raised in this dissertation is: how is foreign policy explained by analyzing the use of historical analogies by decision-makers in their public statements? The purpose of this study is to develop an analytical framework that will help one to analyze the role of historical analogies in foreign policy. This dissertation challenges conventional approaches to historical analogies. It claims that conventional approaches unduly restrict the role that historical analogies play in foreign policy because of the way they perceive variety of practices in which historical analogies are used, as well as their premises about history and language analysis. This dissertation argues against the arguments of conventional instrumental, cognitive and integrated approaches and claims that the scope of constitutive approach needs to be extended. An alternative conceptualization of historical analogies is built on premises of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method. In order to demonstrate the significance of the alternative approach to historical analogies the model is applied to an illustrative analysis of the Cold War historical analogy used by the U.S. and Russia's officials in 2007–2008. The question whether a chance of a (new) Cold War between the U.S. and Russia was possible at that time is answered by showing what kind of rules policy-makers had constituted by using the Cold War historical analogy.

The question raised in this dissertation is: how is foreign policy explained by analyzing the use of historical analogies by decision-makers in their public statements? The purpose of this study is to develop an analytical framework that will help one to analyze the role of historical analogies in foreign policy. This dissertation challenges conventional approaches to historical analogies. It claims that conventional approaches unduly restrict the role that historical analogies play in foreign policy because of the way they perceive variety of practices in which historical analogies are used, as well as their premises about history and language analysis. This dissertation argues against the arguments of conventional instrumental, cognitive and integrated approaches and claims that the scope of constitutive approach needs to be extended. An alternative conceptualization of historical analogies is built on premises of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method. In order to demonstrate the significance of the alternative approach to historical analogies the model is applied to an illustrative analysis of the Cold War historical analogy used by the U.S. and Russia's officials in 2007–2008. The question whether a chance of a (new) Cold War between the U.S. and Russia was possible at that time is answered by showing what kind of rules policy-makers had constituted by using the Cold War historical analogy.

The question raised in this dissertation is: how is foreign policy explained by analyzing the use of historical analogies by decision-makers in their public statements? The purpose of this study is to develop an analytical framework that will help one to analyze the role of historical analogies in foreign policy. This dissertation challenges conventional approaches to historical analogies. It claims that conventional approaches unduly restrict the role that historical analogies play in foreign policy because of the way they perceive variety of practices in which historical analogies are used, as well as their premises about history and language analysis. This dissertation argues against the arguments of conventional instrumental, cognitive and integrated approaches and claims that the scope of constitutive approach needs to be extended. An alternative conceptualization of historical analogies is built on premises of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method. In order to demonstrate the significance of the alternative approach to historical analogies the model is applied to an illustrative analysis of the Cold War historical analogy used by the U.S. and Russia's officials in 2007–2008. The question whether a chance of a (new) Cold War between the U.S. and Russia was possible at that time is answered by showing what kind of rules policy-makers had constituted by using the Cold War historical analogy.

Yüksek Lisans Tezi ; 1946 yılında bağımsızlığını kazanan Suriye ile Türkiye arasındaki ilk ciddi bunalım 1957'de yaşanmıştır. Suriye'de 1960'ların ikinci yarısından itibaren yönetimde etkili olmaya başlayan Baas Partisi, Hatay'ın Suriye'nin toprağı olduğunu iddia etmiş ve bu konuda hem kendi kamuoyunda hem de Arap dünyasında propagandalar yapmıştır. Türkiye'nin Güneydoğu Anadolu Projesi'ne başlamasından sonra su sorununu gündeme taşıyan Suriye, Türkiye'yi su emperyalizmiyle suçlamış ve Arap ülkelerini Türkiye aleyhine kışkırtmıştır. Arap ülkelerinden, Suriye, Yunanistan ve Güney Kıbrıs Rum Yönetimi'nden tehdit algılayan Türkiye, İsrail ile stratejik işbirliği içine girmiştir. Güneydoğu Anadolu Projesini engellemek için Türkiye'ye karşı olan terörist örgütlere destek veren Suriye, Türkiye'ye 1984'ten bu yana ciddi zararlar veren PKK Terör Örgütü'ne 1998 yılına kadar yardım etmiştir. Türkiye'nin İsrail ile işbirliğine gitmesi Suriye'nin kendini bir anda çevrelenmiş hissetmesine yol açmıştır. 16 Eylül 1998'de Orgeneral Atilla Ateş ile başlayan Suriye'ye uyarı ve tehdit mesajları Ekim ayında Türkiye ile Suriye'yi savaşın eşiğine kadar getirmiştir. Özellikle Mısır'ın arabuluculuğu ve diğer Arap ülkelerinin desteğiyle imzalanan Adana Mutabakatı sonrası Suriye, PKK'ya olan desteğini kesmiş ve PKK'nın elebaşı Abdullah Öcalan'ı sınır dışı etmiştir. Adana Mutabakatından sonra ilişkiler yumuşamaya başlamıştır. 2000 yılında Suriye'de iktidarı devralan Beşar Esad, Türkiye ile olan ilişkilere önem vermeye başlamıştır. ABD'nin Orta Doğu'daki emperyalist tutumu Suriye ve Türkiye'yi 2002'den sonra yakınlaştırmıştır. ; First serious conflict between Turkey and Syria which gained its indendency in 1946, occured in 1957. Ba'ath Party which had taken the power since second half of the 1960s, claimed Hatay was a Syria's land and made propagandas both in Syria community and in the Arabic World. After Turkey had decided to begin the Project of Southeastern Anatolia, Syria brought up the water conflict issue, accused Turkey of water imperialism and provoked Arabian Countries consistently against Turkey. Turkey perceiving threats from Arabian Countries, Syria, Greece and even Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus formed a strategic association with Israel in this period. To hinder the Southeastern Anatolia Project, Syria supported the terrorist groups against Turkey with material and logistics and helped and laid up the PKK terrorist organization which has been seriously harming Turkey since 1984. Association with Israel and Turkey caused Syria to feel itself encirled. The warning and threat messages which were started on 16th September 1998 by General Atilla Ates brought Turkey and Syria on the verge of a war. After Adana Congruity signed by the support of Arabian Coutries and especially with the help of mediatoring efforts of Egypt, Syria interrupted its support for PKK and deported the terrorist Abdullah Ocalan, following the Adana Congruity, Relations have started to calm down. Bashar Asad, who took over the government of Syria in 2002 started to attribute importance to the relations with Turkey. The imperialist manner of conduct of USA in Middle East caused Turkey and Syria to become Closer after 2002.

The question of small states in the academic literature is still treated as marginal, analyzing international relations as a "game of great powers". But the fact, that majority of states in contemporary international arena can be described as small, proves that analysis of behavior of small states is also important. Even though the security of small state is always in challenge, the number of small states in international arena is not decreasing, but even increasing. That means, that the problem of (in)security of small state is not irresolvable. Even though the question of security of small state is essential and tends to determine other aspects of behavior of small state in international arena, this issue was deeply analyzed only in 1950'-1970'. After the end of Cold War, the nature of international system have been modified in several aspects, and this also affected the question of the security of small state. Nevertheless international conjuncture sets several constrictions on the choices of security of small state, the final combination of choices belongs to the competence of the small state itself. This combination of choices is considered to be the model of security – the complex of long-term political choices in the sphere of foreign and security politics, being fixed in the strategic documents (Concept of national security, Strategy of national security, Strategy of foreign policy, Military strategy) and constantly appearing in political practice. If permanent political practice does not coincides with the principles, fixed in strategic documents, and then the principles, which are evident in political practice, are taken as a background of the model of security. The "model of security" is the original term, introduced in this paper. In literature the term "security policy" is used, but "security policy" emphasizes the partners of foreign policy, at the same time "the model of security" focuses attention on the type of relation between the state and its partners of foreign and security policy. In the period of Cold War small states, located in the intersection of interests of two superpowers, had only two opportunities: to joint one of them (to go to alliance) or not to join (to remain neutral). After the collapse of bipolar international system, one more model of security – complementarism - became possible. The main idea of complementarism can be described as the ability of small state to guarantee it's national security, relying not on one, but several "suppliers" of security. The main question of analysis was why small states, located in similar external conditions, tend to choose different models of security to maintain national security. The region of South Caucasus was chosen as an empirical case of analysis. Nevertheless states of South Caucasus are in maximum similar conditions, they choose different models of security to maintain national security: Georgia – alliance, Armenia – complementarism, Azerbaijan – neutrality. The results of analysis showed, that, in the case studied, two factors influence choice of the models of security: different type of threat to territorial integrity and different strategic resources of the country. The first factor determines the level of flexibility of the model of security – the more intensive the threat to territorial integrity is, the less flexible the model of security will be. The second factor influences the direction of the main vector (or vectors) in the model of security. It is worth to mention, that the results of analysis showed, that internal factors play a huge role in determining the model of security of the state. "Classical" theoretical insights stated that only external factors are those who determine choice of model of security of small state. As the analysis of case of the states of South Caucasus proved, the ignorance of the role of internal factors was one of the main missing points in the studies of security of small states.

The question of small states in the academic literature is still treated as marginal, analyzing international relations as a "game of great powers". But the fact, that majority of states in contemporary international arena can be described as small, proves that analysis of behavior of small states is also important. Even though the security of small state is always in challenge, the number of small states in international arena is not decreasing, but even increasing. That means, that the problem of (in)security of small state is not irresolvable. Even though the question of security of small state is essential and tends to determine other aspects of behavior of small state in international arena, this issue was deeply analyzed only in 1950'-1970'. After the end of Cold War, the nature of international system have been modified in several aspects, and this also affected the question of the security of small state. Nevertheless international conjuncture sets several constrictions on the choices of security of small state, the final combination of choices belongs to the competence of the small state itself. This combination of choices is considered to be the model of security – the complex of long-term political choices in the sphere of foreign and security politics, being fixed in the strategic documents (Concept of national security, Strategy of national security, Strategy of foreign policy, Military strategy) and constantly appearing in political practice. If permanent political practice does not coincides with the principles, fixed in strategic documents, and then the principles, which are evident in political practice, are taken as a background of the model of security. The "model of security" is the original term, introduced in this paper. In literature the term "security policy" is used, but "security policy" emphasizes the partners of foreign policy, at the same time "the model of security" focuses attention on the type of relation between the state and its partners of foreign and security policy. In the period of Cold War small states, located in the intersection of interests of two superpowers, had only two opportunities: to joint one of them (to go to alliance) or not to join (to remain neutral). After the collapse of bipolar international system, one more model of security – complementarism - became possible. The main idea of complementarism can be described as the ability of small state to guarantee it's national security, relying not on one, but several "suppliers" of security. The main question of analysis was why small states, located in similar external conditions, tend to choose different models of security to maintain national security. The region of South Caucasus was chosen as an empirical case of analysis. Nevertheless states of South Caucasus are in maximum similar conditions, they choose different models of security to maintain national security: Georgia – alliance, Armenia – complementarism, Azerbaijan – neutrality. The results of analysis showed, that, in the case studied, two factors influence choice of the models of security: different type of threat to territorial integrity and different strategic resources of the country. The first factor determines the level of flexibility of the model of security – the more intensive the threat to territorial integrity is, the less flexible the model of security will be. The second factor influences the direction of the main vector (or vectors) in the model of security. It is worth to mention, that the results of analysis showed, that internal factors play a huge role in determining the model of security of the state. "Classical" theoretical insights stated that only external factors are those who determine choice of model of security of small state. As the analysis of case of the states of South Caucasus proved, the ignorance of the role of internal factors was one of the main missing points in the studies of security of small states.